[Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

Colin Smale colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Sun Feb 5 11:33:27 UTC 2017

My understanding is that the definitive data held by the appropriate
local authority is exactly that, definitive. There may be legitimate
errors in there of course, but where a path has been willfully and
legally rerouted, that is a different type of error - lack of currency,
i.e. an order has been made to reroute the path but they haven't yet got
round to updating the Definitive Map and the Definitive Statement. 

Any paths that no longer follow the official route (as per the DM/DS)
should not be tagged as PROW and probably as access=permissive unless
they go across otherwise public land. The official route is still a
public right of way, it's just no longer usable as such. 

Do you have a way of feeding these discrepancies back to Somerset CC, to
establish whether they are true errors, lack of currency or illegal



On 2017-02-05 11:19, Dave F wrote:

> Hi
> If you're using local authority data/os open data to map paths, as a contributor current is in Somerset, please don't assume their layout corresponds with what's on the ground or is more accurate than what's mapped in OSM. These official ways are often outdated, being based on redundant features such as grubbed up fences & hedgerows. Gate & stiles occasionally get moved. These tweaks often don't make it back to the Definitive Map.
> Please verify using this data doesn't make OSM less accurate.
> Cheers
> DaveF
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20170205/7650628e/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list